The Labour Government

metalblue said:
Your defence of discrimination wouldn’t stand up in court. Try harder.

Entitled? What the fuck are you on about? Have you just learnt a new word and you’re desperate to use it?
Click to expand...

Really because we've been treating kids with special needs differently for decades.

They get special treatment because they have special needs. Local authorities hate spending extra money on independent provision and fight tooth and nail to avoid it, but sometimes there isn't maintained provision that meets the child's needs.

A child with special needs in an independent school might have as much as 20 times as much money spent on them as one in a mainstream school. Sometimes that's not accounting for boarding or being driven to school with a passenger assistant in the back.

How else would you describe how you are behaving?

You're saying upper middle class children are being disadvantaged compared to disabled children? If I didn't know that you were just bitter I'd point out the ignorance of it.

Entitled sums it up.
 
meltonblue said:
That’s missing the point though. If we’re talking about people that are struggling to pay the fees, then plenty have already been priced out due to the increases the private schools have put on themselves, which also led to a lot of their closures. Some people will be priced out of it like I said, plenty won’t.

I’m not averse to a phased implementation of it but that’s to help a small proportion of the consumers of the sector. Although I’d rather see that happen if it could, if it was a choice of implementing it or not at all due to the impact on those, then I’d still want to see it implemented.

I highly doubt any legal challenge will work, it would be for performative reasons more than anything.
Click to expand...

Ok, get the point you’re making now thanks for explaining. I don’t necessarily agree to its relevance in the context of VAT but it’s a valid point on its own. Private schools going bust isn’t my issue with charging VAT on education as if it’s goods which I disagree with in principle, I don’t have a dog in this fight beyond that. Perhaps if we look at this more holistically - what would you think if they started charging VAT on uni fees, after all it’s education paid for by the consumer? What is the argument here that it should be exempt from VAT compared to a non profit making private school?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Really because we've been treating kids with special needs differently for decades.

They get special treatment because they have special needs. Local authorities hate spending extra money on independent provision and fight tooth and nail to avoid it, but sometimes there isn't maintained provision that meets the child's needs.

A child with special needs in an independent school might have as much as 20 times as much money spent on them as one in a mainstream school. Sometimes that's not accounting for boarding or being driven to school with a passenger assistant in the back.

How else would you describe how you are behaving?

You're saying upper middle class children are being disadvantaged compared to disabled children? If I didn't know that you were just bitter I'd point out the ignorance of it.

Entitled sums it up.
Click to expand...

You’ve gone off on some tangent there.

Kid A with SEND needs pays VAT
Kid B with SEND needs doesn’t pay VAT

Explain how that is not discrimination.

I don’t have kids at private school so why would I be bitter about it? You might want to polish that crystal ball of yours before picking your lottery numbers.
 
metalblue said:
You’ve gone off on some tangent there.

Kid A with SEND needs pays VAT
Kid B with SEND needs doesn’t pay VAT

Explain how that is not discrimination.

I don’t have kids at private school so why would I be bitter about it? You might want to polish that crystal ball of yours before picking your lottery numbers.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? If the kid with has EHCP it's covered by the council, the council then claims back the VAT.

So you're just complaining that you want to waste public money on civil servants doing an accounting exercise.

It's probably not a luxury item if the kid has an EHCP, also Local authorities don't usually agree to just fund a child at a private school (non special school) until they are 18. There may be the expectation that they attended the maintained provision at some point and may have formalised that in a private settlement with the parents.
 
PPT said:
It does allow the younger ones with no experience to get on the job ladder. Otherwise businesses would just go for the older more experienced people every time.
I do agree it is scandalous and the pay should be the same. But that is the reason given.
Click to expand...
I think in it's current guise the situation reverses, making it more advantageous to hire the the younger adult employee.

I have noticed that the minimum wage levels have now changed, where employees receive the maximum at 21 instead of 25. However as you say it's scandulous to discriminate between an 18 year old, 20 year old and 21 year old (all adults)

Labour said they plan to make work pay, to boost wages, to make work more secure and support working people to thrive. Well Mr Starmer if you want them to thrive, then you need to begin leveling the playing field and at least pay them the same minimum wage.

Having to go cap in hand as a 20 year old to top up £8.60 an hour when you are doing the same job as a 21year old is nothing short of demoralising. I was under the impression tackling inequality was at the heart of Labours ambitions, not watering down with economic prudency.
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
Ok, get the point you’re making now thanks for explaining. I don’t necessarily agree to its relevance in the context of VAT but it’s a valid point on its own. Private schools going bust isn’t my issue with charging VAT on education as if it’s goods which I disagree with in principle, I don’t have a dog in this fight beyond that. Perhaps if we look at this more holistically - what would you think if they started charging VAT on uni fees, after all it’s education paid for by the consumer? What is the argument here that it should be exempt from VAT compared to a non profit making private school?
Click to expand...

Well go back thirty years and it wasn’t education paid for by the consumer, it was seen as an essential part of the state education service to have a fully functioning society. It’s also not a luxury only available to people based on their personal wealth (well, their families wealth). The attainment is based on academic merit of the individual.

Personally I’d rather go back to scrapping university fees or at the very least make changes to the interest paid on student loans. My sons lucky in that I’m in the position where I can pay off his fees for him up front, plenty aren’t though.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
It won't be the Winchesters, Eton 'n 'Arrows that go to the wall, it'll be the smaller local independents that will disappear so there may well be an exodus that the state system cannot accommodate, and we'll be back to the 'Golden Age of the 50s where there were hordes in every class.
Click to expand...

Why would that happen when the state sector has more spare places than the entire private sector?

Most non-partisan experts think that the numbers leaving will be fairly small, but even a dramatic exodus, of 20% of all private pupils, wouldn't even make a dent in the state sector.
 
Worsleyweb said:
Why were we then known as the sick man of Europe during the time you refer to?
Click to expand...
Have you heard of Edward Heath? he tried to introduce an incomes policy that failed spectacularly and led to huge industrial unrest, We were the sick man of Europe because of Heaths stuoidity, read up on it. he was a fucking idiot,
 
PPT said:
You are just a faux communist who constantly spouts ideological bullshit and calls everyone a ****. Get in the bin.
Click to expand...
thanks for your kind words

Love that you call me a "faux communist" I am probably more influenced by Kropotkin than Marks, more Lenin than Trotsky, i am not a Stalinist, Gramsci intrigues me, not read much though.

What you have to remember is there are differences as the left always argues over small details.

Marxism believes in the public ownership of the means of production, whilst Communism believes in the collective ownership of the means of production. Can you see the difference?

Lenin though was quite comfortable with small business as they should remain outside of state control.

Trotsky s ideas were of perpertual revolution until the world was socialist.

You my friend are obviously a Capitalist, which makes yo a supporter of the most murderous ideology than mankind has ever seen.

Bless you x
 
bluenova said:
Why would that happen when the state sector has more spare places than the entire private sector?

Most non-partisan experts think that the numbers leaving will be fairly small, but even a dramatic exodus, of 20% of all private pupils, wouldn't even make a dent in the state sector.
Click to expand...
Has any detailed planning / analysis been conducted on which parts of the country and indeed individual councils are most likely to see private school pupils moving to the state sector, and whether the state sector in those particular areas could absorb this increase in numbers?

Talking about spare capacity in the state sector as a whole is a non-argument if the movement is likely to be concentrated in particular regions.
 
meltonblue said:
Is that targeted at an individual? As I don’t think there’s many people that wouldn’t agree that anyone with failed asylum should
be either staying or working here illegally.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is. It's targeted towards all those who hated how the Tories handled immigration and are now cheering something that Braverman herself could've said.
 
Don Karleone said:
Yeah, it is. It's targeted towards all those who hated how the Tories handled immigration and are now cheering something that Braverman herself could've said.
Click to expand...

Really? As that doesn’t make much sense at all to me. Braverman didn’t care if they were failed asylum seekers or not, she didn’t want them getting here in the first place and her and all the other Home Secretaries under the tories failed to sort out the processing to know if they had acceptable reasons for asylum or not. Even worse than that though, even if they were successful, they wanted to subsequently shift them off to Rwanda.

How’s that comparable to ensuring failed asylum seekers aren’t staying and working here illegally? The key bit there being their application being processed and assessed whether they are eligible or not. For any whose application was accepted, there’s no suggestion of doing anything. There’s no hypocrisy or party political bollocks there, it’s a rational position for people to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top